DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0006351 A1 to Hesselmann et al. in view of US 2005/055203 A1 to Prevey.
Hesselmann et al. teaches a method for manufacturing a disc spring including a spring body 11 formed into an annular shape (see figure 4), the disc spring has
an outer circumferential surface 13 facing an outward side in a radial direction,
an inner circumferential surface 12 facing an inward side in the radial direction (figure 15 shows the plate spring as it appears),
an outer circumferential edge 15 is an end surface on the outward side in the radial direction,
an inner circumferential edge 14 is an end surface on the inward side in the radial direction, the method comprising:
applying a compressive residual stress to at least an outer end portion in the radial direction on the inner circumferential surface (such as shown in figure 4, see region 17) by relatively rotating a support body (such as 31 that rotates relative to 52) supporting at least the outer end portion in the radial direction on the inner circumferential surface (support body 31 presses against the spring body and therefor is interpreted as supporting the spring body) and the spring body 11 around a center axis line of the spring body while the support body and the spring body are brought into sliding contact with each other in a state in which a compressive force in an axial direction along the center axis line is applied to the spring body using the support body,
a compressive force in the axial direction of the spring body 11 using the support body 31, the spring body is elastically deformed in the axial direction (via the rolling elements 33).
However, Hesselmann et al. fail to teach the support body (i.e. 31) and the spring body abutting each other at a plurality of points in a circumferential direction, or over the entire circumferential direction.
Prevey teaches a method for applying compressive residual stresses over a plurality of points simultaneously using a plurality of ball rolling elements 108/110 (similar to the rolling ball element of Hesselmann et al.). This allows for simultaneous application of differing compressive residual stresses at adjacent locations as desired (see abstract), or simply reducing the time necessary for applying a compressive residual stress to a surface by using plural rolling elements. The use of at least two elements would have reduced the time needed for covering the spring body surface. The plural rolling elements are capable of being located anywhere along the circumferential direction, including along a same circumferential line. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the apparatus of Hesselmann et al. with a plurality of rolling ball tools (as support bodies) thus having the support body and the spring body abutting each other at a plurality of points in a circumferential direction as suggested by Prevey, thereby at least reducing the time necessary for applying the compressive residual stress to the spring body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10 and 12 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The remarks regarding the rejection of claim 9 as set forth in the Office action dated November 28, 2025 have been considered and are found persuasive. Terada teaches a surface roughness associated with opposing sides, and thus fails to address a surface roughness at parts along a radial direction, as argued by the applicant (see page 10).
Claims 3-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiries concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Williams whose telephone number is 571-272-7128. The examiner can normally be reached on Tuesday-Friday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Siconolfi, can be reached at 571-272-7124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-6584.
TJW
April 8, 2026
/THOMAS J WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3616
Prosecution Insights